The Complainant, Karen Bishop, filed a complaint of prohibited practices alleging
that the Milwaukee Public Schools had terminated her without just cause, and that her
exclusive bargaining representative, Local 150 of the Service Employees International Union,
had failed to provide fair representation to her in her attempts to challenge the discharge.
On
July 26, 2006, the Commission's Examiner determined

Dec. No. 31602-E

Page 2

Decision No. 31602-E

that Local 150 had not failed in its duty of fair representation, and dismissed the
complaint
(Dec. No. 31602-B). On review, the Commission reversed the Examiner, concluded that
Local 150 had failed to fairly represent the Complainant, and ordered that the complaint be
reinstated, that Local 150 reimburse the Complainant for her legal expenses in prosecuting
the case, and that the merits of her claim be adjudicated before a different Examiner (Dec.
No. 31602-C (WERC, 1/02/07)).

On March 21, 2007, the undersigned was appointed as Examiner with final authority
on behalf of the Commission to make and issue Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Orders, as appropriate, related to the merits of the Complainant's claim that she had been
terminated without just cause. The Commission retained jurisdiction over all issues
connected with the duty of fair representation aspects of the case, including its Order that
Local 150 reimburse the costs of litigation.

Hearings were held on May 7, June 18 and June 29, 2007 at the District offices in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, at which time the parties were afforded full opportunity to present
such testimony, exhibits, stipulations and other evidence as were relevant to the issue of just
cause. Stenographic records were made of the hearings, and the last transcript was received
on September 3, 2007. The parties submitted briefs and replies, the last of which was
received on November 21, 2007, whereupon the record was closed.

Now, having reviewed the testimony, the exhibits, the arguments of the parties, and
the record as a whole, and being fully advised in the premises, the Examiner makes and
issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order.

1. Karen Bishop, hereafter Complainant or Bishop, is a resident of the State of
Wisconsin and was employed by Milwaukee Public Schools from 1990 until her discharge
from employment in March of 2004. From 2001 until the time of her discharge,
Complainant was employed as a Handicapped Children's Assistant at the Milwaukee School
of Languages.

2. Service Employees International Union Local 150, hereafter SEIU or Union,
is a labor organization and the exclusive bargaining representative of a collective bargaining
unit of employees of Milwaukee Public Schools, including food

Page 3

Decision No. 31602-E

service managers, food service manager trainees, food service assistants, handicapped
children's assistants, and school nursing assistants (MPS Unit). Between the years 2001 and
2005, Carmen Dickinson was the SEIU Representative with primary responsibility over the
MPS Unit. SEIU Representative Michael Thomas succeeded Carmen Dickinson in this
capacity. At the time of her discharge from employment with Milwaukee Public Schools,
the Complainant was a member of the MPS Unit.

3. Milwaukee Public Schools, hereafter MPS, is a municipal employer. At all
times material hereto, Michael Bellin, Deborah Ford, Cleo Rucker and Luiz Garza have been
employed by MPS and have acted on behalf of MPS with respect to MPS' labor relations
function, including the processing of grievances. At all times material hereto, Jerome Hamm
has been employed by MPS as the Assistant Principal of the Milwaukee School of Languages
and, in that capacity, was the direct supervisor of Complainant.

4. MPS and SEIU are parties to a collective bargaining agreement that includes
the following:

PART VI

GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

A. PURPOSE

The purpose of the grievance procedure is to provide a method for
quick and binding final determination of every question of interpretation and
application of the provisions of this agreement, thus preventing the protracted
continuation of misunderstandings which may arise from time to time
concerning such questions.

B. DEFINITIONS

A grievance is defined to be an issue concerning the interpretation or
application
of provisions of this agreement or compliance therewith provided, however, that
it shall not be deemed to apply to any order, action, or directive of the
superintendent or of anyone acting on their behalf, or to any action of the Board
which relates or pertains to their respective duties or obligations under the
provisions of the state statutes.

C. RESOLUTION OF GRIEVANCE

If the grievance is not processed within the time limit at any step of the
grievance
procedure, it shall be considered to have been resolved by previous disposition.
Any time limit in the procedure may be extended by mutual consent.

Page 4

Decision No. 31602-E

D. STEPS OF GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

Grievances shall be processed as follows:

FIRST STEP -- An employe shall, within five (5)
workdays, submit his/her
grievance directly to his/her next higher authority, but he/she may request next
higher authority to send for a) a representative of the Union, or b) a fellow employe
of his/her own choosing for the purpose of joint oral presentation and discussion
of the grievance at a mutually convenient time. In the event a representative is
brought in by the employe, a Union representative shall also be present. If the
grievance is not resolved satisfactorily, it shall be reduced to writing and presented
to the employe's next higher authority within five (5) workdays of the oral
presentation. The next higher authority shall give a written answer within five (5)
workdays of receipt of the written grievance.

The next higher authority shall advise Labor Relations in writing of his/her
disposition of any grievance presented without the presence of a Union
representative with copies for the department head and the Union. All written
grievances shall be set forth on a form provided by Labor Relations.

SECOND STEP -- If the grievance is not adjusted in a
manner satisfactory to the
employe or the Union within five (5) workdays after the presentation and
discussion, then the grievance may be set forth in writing within five (5) workdays
by a representative of the Union on a form provided by Labor Relations which is
signed by the grievant, and presented to the department head. The department head
shall, at the Union's request, set a mutually convenient time for discussion of the
grievance. Such discussion should take place within ten (10) workdays of
presentation of the written and signed grievance to the department head. The
department head shall advise the Union in writing of his/her disposition of the
grievance within five (5) workdays following the discussion with a copy of
the
disposition being simultaneously delivered to Labor Relations.

THIRD STEP -- If the written grievance is not adjusted
in a manner satisfactory
to the employe or the Union within five (5) workdays after the discussion
with the
department head, it may be presented within five (5) workdays by the Union
to the
superintendent or his/her designee for discussion. Such discussion shall be made
within ten (10) workdays at a mutually convenient time fixed by the superintendent
or his/her designee. The superintendent or his/her designee shall render a written
disposition to the Union within ten (10) workdays from said hearing. If the
grievance is not certified to the impartial referee in accordance with the impartial
referee procedure within twenty (20) workdays after notification of the
superintendent's or his/her designee's decision, such decision shall become final.

Page 5

Decision No. 31602-E

FOURTH STEP - The decision of the superintendent or
his/her designee upon a
grievance shall be subject to the impartial referee upon certification to him/her by
the Union. The final decision of the impartial referee, made within the scope of
his/her jurisdictional authority, shall be binding upon the parties and the employes
covered by this agreement.

JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY. Jurisdictional
authority is limited to
consideration of grievances as herein above defined. The impartial referee
procedure shall be subject to the following:

a. The Union (certifying party) shall notify the superintendent (other party) in
writing of the certification of a grievance.

b. The certifying party shall forward to the impartial referee a copy of the
grievance and the other party's answer and also send a copy of such communication
to the other party.

c. Upon receipt of such documents, the impartial referee shall fix the time and
place for a formal hearing of the issues raised in the grievance not later than thirty
(30) days after receipt of such documents, unless a longer time is agreed to by the
parties.

d. Upon the fixing of a referee hearing date, the parties may arrange mutually
agreeable terms for a pre hearing conference to consider means of expediting the
hearing by, for example, reducing the issues to writing, stipulating fact, outlining
intended offers of proof, and authenticating proposed exhibits.

e. In those cases where either party deems it necessary, it may be
arranged that
a transcript of the hearing be made by a qualified court reporter. The party making
such arrangements shall bear the full cost thereof. The other party may purchase
a copy. If the impartial referee requests that he/she be furnished with a copy, the
expense of the original copy and the reporter's attendance charge shall be borne
equally by the parties except as provided in 3 below.

f. At the close of the hearing, the impartial referee shall afford the parties
reasonable opportunity to submit briefs.

h. The impartial referee shall lay down the rules for orderly conduct of
the
hearing.

Page 6

Decision No. 31602-E

i. In rendering a decision, the impartial referee shall be bound by the
terms
of the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the parties, past practices of
the parties, and cited prior arbitration rulings to which the bargaining unit was a
party. The arbitrator may give consideration to controlling legal and arbitral case
law and must give recognition to the principles of law related to the interpretation
of contracts followed by Wisconsin courts.

j. The expenses of the impartial referee shall be borne equally by the
parties,
except that the party requesting reconsideration or rehearing shall bear the full
expenses of the impartial referee incurred in such reconsideration or rehearing
except as provided in 3 below.

a. If the parties are unable to agree upon the
selection of an impartial
referee within two (2) weeks after desired certification of a grievance either
party may initiate a request to the WERC to submit to them a list of the names
of five (5) persons suitable for selection as impartial referee.

b. The parties shall strike a name alternately, beginning with the
Union,
until one (1) name remains. Such remaining person shall act as impartial
referee. In subsequent selections, the parties will alternate the first choice to
strike a name.

PAYMENT OF ARBITRATION COSTS. During
each year of the contract, the
Board shall pay the cost of the impartial referee's fees plus one (1) transcript for
the Union and one (1) transcript for the Board for up to two (2) arbitrations.

E. PRESENCE OF GRIEVANT

1. The person taking the action may be present at every step of the procedure
and shall be present at the request of the Union, the superintendent, his/her designee,
or the department head, as the case may be.

2. Grievances at the second step and grievances at the third step may be
processed during the day at the grievant's school. If impossible to schedule a meeting
at the grievant's school, the employe may be released without loss of pay to meet
with the appropriate party. Every effort shall be made to not absent an employe from
his/her work.

Page 7

Decision No. 31602-E

3. The employer will recognize stewards selected by the Union to represent
employes with their grievances, discipline, and other maters of contract enforcement
after receiving notification from the Union of the names of such stewards.

F. GROUP GRIEVANCE

In order to prevent the filing of a multiplicity of grievances on the same
question
of interpretation or compliance, where the grievance covers a question common
to a number of employes, it shall be processed as a single grievance, commencing
with the party having jurisdictional authority thereof. Any group grievance shall
set forth thereon the names of the persons or the group and the title and specific
assignments of the people covered by the group grievance.

G. PROCEDURE FOR GRIEVANCES WHICH ARE NOT

UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF FIRST
AUTHORITY

Any grievance, based upon the action of authority higher than the first higher
authority, shall be initiated directly with the person having such jurisdiction of the
matter.

H. DISCIPLINARY MATTERS

1. Any regularly appointed employe who is reduced in status, suspended,
removed, or discharged may, within five (5) workdays after receipt of such action,
file a grievance as to the just cause of the discharge, suspension, or discipline
imposed upon him/her.

5. In February 2004, MPS received written statements from two Educational
Assistants employed by MPS at the Milwaukee School of Languages, i.e., Diane McConnell
and Annette Lopez, regarding Complainant's conduct towards H, a Special Education Needs
Student with a cognitive disability, on February 13, 2004. Lopez' statement, dated February
13, 2004, is as follows:

On February 13, 2004 at approximately 1:30 p.m. I was walking pass the gym
(many of the students and a couple of staff members were standing by the door)
and I witnessed Ms. Bishop pushing [H]. [H] fell to the floor (in a sitting position)
she was very upset and crying. As [H] got up from the floor she went towards Ms.
Bishop (she was crying and shouting "You push me") and poked her on the
shoulder with her finger.

Page 8

Decision No. 31602-E

I asked Ms. Bishop "Why did you push [H]?" and she responded "I did not
push
her, several others did." And I said "You pushed her because I saw you." And Ms.
Bishop said I don't have to listen to you." I said to Ms. Bishop "How would you
like someone to treat your child like that?" She repeated again "I don't have to
listen to you." And I responded "you are right you don't" but, you have to listen
to Mr. Hamm. I proceeded to report it to Mr. Hamm immediately.

6. McConnell' s statement, dated February 17, 2004 is as follows:

On Friday, February 13, 2004, [H] was crying because another student had pinched
her. She cannot speak very clearly, so it was hard to understand what she was saying.
Karen Bishop came over to her and told her to stop crying and that she was always
making a fuss about something. She then grabbed [H] by the arm and pulled her as
if she was upset with her. When she did this, [H] became angry and started to yell at
her. Karen Bishop started to push her away yelling get away from me. At this point,
I intervened and took [H] out into the hallway. She got a drink of water and I talked
with her to calm her down. We returned to the gym as I told her to get in line with
the rest of the students. She went over to get in line and Karen turned around and told
her to get away from her and then with both hands, she pushed her down. [H] fell to
the floor crying and I went over to help her up.

7. MPS received a written statement dated February 25, 2004 from MPS
employee Jeremy Krutina that states as follows:

On the date in question, Friday 13, 2004, [H] was in the gym and (K.H.) pushed [H]
away from the basketball court where [H] was trying to shoot baskets. [H] got very
upset and Ms. Bishop went to see what was wrong with [H]. [H] said that (C.)
pinched her. Ms. Bishop was trying to find out exactly what happened and then Mr.
Zabala called out to put the balls away. Ms. Bishop took the ball away from [H] and
then [H] got upset and went after Ms. Bishop. [H] was slapping and swinging at Ms.
Bishop. Ms. Bishop stepped aside and was attempting to block [H] swings. [H]
wasn't responding to Ms. Bishop and Ms. Bishop then put her hand on (H's) hip and
gently pushed her to the side in order to prevent harm to herself and the other
students. At this point, Ms. McConnell came over and took [H] out to get a drink of
water. After this point, I did not see anything else that took place between [H] and
Ms. Bishop.

Page 9

Decision No. 31602-E

8. MPS received a written statement dated February 26, 2004 from MPS
Physical Education Teacher Aracelio Zabala that states as follows:

On February 13, 2004 during the end of 7th hour I observed [H] trying to hit Ms.
Bishop with her open hand. As [H] came towards Ms. Bishop I observed no physical
contact by either of them. Ms. Bishop simply backed away as [H] attempted to hit
her.

9. MPS received an undated written statement from MPS employee C. Pitchford
that states as follows:

On February 13, during the last ten minutes of seventh hour. I saw [H] go over to
where Mrs. Bishop was standing two times. During those two times [H] was lashing
out at Mrs. Bishop.

10. On or about February 13, 2004, Complainant filed with MPS a "Report of
Assault Suffered by School Personnel" alleging battery in that, during 7th
hour Gym Class
on February 13, 2004:

[H] approached me in tears saying one of the students had pushed her away from the
basketball hoop. I urged her to calm down and go play at another basket. Some time
later I saw [H] wandering around still angry. I approached her trying to calm her. She
moved into my faceand hit both of her fists on my chest. I put my
hands up to push
her hands off my chest.

I walked away to let someone else try to help [H]. I took the basketball away
from her because she was still carrying it and not playing.

Ms. McConnell took [H] out in the hall-to get a drink & help calm her, I
think.

The next thing I knew, [H] came into the south door of the gym. She came
over to me and began slapping her hands all around in front of my head and
face. I instinctively pushed her hands away from me: I was afraid of being hit.

My back was to the north open door of the gym. Ms. Lopez appeared there. She
said,
"Know why [H] is crying." "Someone pushed her." I said "who?" because I could
not understand [H]; who had said "yes" to 2 or 3 names of students that I just
guessed from where [H] was gesturing.

Ms. Lopez then stated that I had pushed [H].

Page 10

Decision No. 31602-E

It was then after gym and I took our students to their classroom. Ms. Lopez,
Ms.
McConnell & [H] remained behind. Mr. Zabala and Mr. Pitchford were present at
all times.

11. A pre-disciplinary meeting was held at the end of February 2004 in the office
of Grace Thomsen, the Principal of the Milwaukee School of Languages. At this meeting,
Thomsen provided the Complainant and SEIU Steward Carol Vian with copies of a packet
of materials. This packet included a copy of Complainant's "Report of Assault Suffered by
School Personnel;" Lopez' written statement of February 13, 2004; McConnell' s written
statement of February 17, 2004; Krutina's written statement of February 25,
2004; an August
5, 2003 letter from MPS Personnel Analyst D. Michael Bellin setting forth
procedures that
must be followed due to Complainant's continued record of excessive absences; and a letter
from Mrs. H, the mother of H, claiming, inter alia, that this student had
stated that
Complainant had grabbed her arm and pushed her down. This packet also included a written
statement of "Certain Facts Meeting for Ms. Karen Bishop, Handicapped Children's
Assistant" that includes the following:

On Friday, February 13, 2004, adult Special Education Needs Student [H] was
escorted to Mr. Hamm's office by Educational Assistant, Ms. Lopez, during hour
seven gym class. The student was crying and sobbing. When questioned by Mr.
Hamm, [H] said several times, "She pushed me!" "She pushed me!" When asked
to tell who pushed her, [H] said that Ms. Bishop pushed her.

Two Educational Assistants provided statements indicating that they saw Ms.
Bishop push [H] during gym class on February 13, 2004.

(H's) mother was notified via telephone by Mr. Hamm of (H's) allegation against
Ms. Bishop on Friday, February 13, 2004. (Mrs. H) drove [H] to School on Monday,
February 16, 2004 and indicated that [H] was upset about the February 13, 2004 gym
situation the entire weekend. According to (Mrs. H), the student told "anyone who
would listen to her" that Ms. Bishop pushed [H]. (Mrs. H) came to school the
afternoon of Wednesday, February 18, 2004 to pick up [H], who had missed her
school bus. (Mrs. H) took the time to tell Mr. Hamm that [H] still seemed upset
about the February 13th incident. (Mrs. H) indicated in a very strong manner that she
did not want [H] and Ms. Bishop to have contact with one another, citing concern for
(H's) safety as an issue.

On February 16, 2004, Mr. Hamm left word with Mr. Fredricks, SEN Teacher, to
have Ms. Bishop report to Mr. Hamm as soon as she arrived at work. Her start time
is 8:15 AM. When Ms. Bishop had not reported to Mr. Hamm by 9:00 AM, Mr.
Hamm called Mr. Fredrick's room,

Page 11

Decision No. 31602-E

where he discovered Ms. Bishop was in attendance. Mr. Hamm directed Ms. Bishop
to report to his office, room 145, immediately. When Ms. Bishop still had not
reported to Mr. Hamm by 9:10 AM, Mr. Hamm walked over to Mr. Fredrick's
classroom, where Ms. Bishop was still in attendance. Ms. Bishop did accompany Mr.
Hamm to his office. In his office, she spoke with Ms. Vian, Union Steward, by
telephone and Mr. Hamm also spoke to Ms. Vian to set up the February 25, 2004
meeting date. Ms. Bishop left school at 10:00 a.m. on February 16th, citing
illness.

II. Ms. Bishop received a letter from Human Resources, dated August 5,
2003 which indicated some expectations regarding her attendance pattern.
There are several absence dates during the 2003-2004 school year that are of
concern:

9-12-2003; 10-20-2003; 10-21-2003; 2-12-2003; 2-19-2004; 2-20-2004.

12. At the conclusion of the pre-disciplinary meeting, Thomsen told the
Complainant that she could return to work; that Thomsen would be making a report to the
Central Office; and that Complainant should wait for the next decision. Complainant
received a copy of the letter that Thomsen sent to the Central Office. Thereafter,
Complainant received a letter dated March 8, 2004, from Bellin that includes the following:

Dr. Grace Thomsen, Principal at Milwaukee School of Languages, has advised me
that hearings were held on February 25, 2004 and February 26, 2004 to discuss
allegations of your possible misconduct as a Handicapped Children's Assistant.
Present at the hearings, beside you, were Ms. Jennifer Smith and Mr. Jerome Hamm,
Assistant Principals, Ms. Thomsen, and Ms. Carol Vian, your Local 150
representative.

Based on your record, the information presented at the hearing, and the
recommendation of Dr. Thomsen, you are hereby discharged from Milwaukee Public
Schools, effective at the start of business on Tuesday, March 9, 2004.

The reason for this action is:

(1) Pushing a child;

(2) Failing to comply with attendance procedures, and Absence Without
Approved Leave on February 18, 19, 20, and 24, 2004; and

(3) Your overall record and history of absences.

Page 12

Decision No. 31602-E

Your actions constituted prohibited conduct as defined in the "Employee Rules of
Conduct" adopted by the Milwaukee Board of School Directors on September 29, 1999.

You may file a grievance as to the just cause of this action within five (5) days of
your
receipt of this notice. (Your union representative, Ms. Carmen Dickinson, may be contacted
at [***-****], extension 16.)

If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact me at [***-****]

13. On or about March 18, 2004, SEIU Representative Carmen Dickinson filed
a
written
grievance with MPS alleging that the labor contract between MPS and SEIU had been
violated by the "unjust termination" of Complainant and requesting "reinstatement and made
whole." Complainant received a copy of this grievance at the second step grievance
meeting;
which was held on April 2, 2004.

14. As detailed in the Commission's earlier ruling (Dec. No. 31602-C), the
grievance was processed further, but was not resolved to the Complainant's satisfaction, nor
submitted to arbitration. The Union's handling of the matter violated its duty of fair
representation to the Complainant.

15. On Friday, February 6, 2004, the Complainant accompanied Diane
McConnell and a group of approximately ten disabled students to the gymnasium for the
seventh hour gym class. About ten minutes before the end of the class period,
McConnell left the gym without seeking permission or telling anyone where she was
going. When the period ended, Bishop was left to escort the students back to the
classroom alone. Assistant Principal Hamm saw her with the students in the hallway, and
asked what she was doing. She explained that the other aide, Ms. McConnell, had left
the gymnasium and not come back. Hamm had her bring the children into his office, and
paged McConnell. When McConnell arrived, she said she had permission to go check
her mailbox. She then started berating Hamm in a loud voice. He directed her to help
Bishop return the children to the classroom. Hamm checked with the gym teacher, Mr.
Zabala, who said he had not given McConnell permission to leave the gym, and did not
even know she was gone until the end of the class.

McConnell and Bishop took the children back to the classroom, where McConnell
loudly confronted Bishop, telling her that if she caught her "lying on her" to Hamm
again, she was going to "kick her ass." Fredricks saw that Bishop was frightened by
McConnell's outburst, and stepped between them. Bishop and Fredricks went to the
Principal's office later that day, and Bishop made a formal complaint about McConnell's
threats against her.

Page 13

Decision No. 31602-E

16. On Friday, February 13, 2004, the Complainant and McConnell again took
the students, including [H] to the gymnasium for the seventh hour gym class. During the
course of the class period, [H] was shooting baskets, when another student pushed her and
pinched her. She became very upset, and Bishop sought to calm her and redirect her to
another basket.

17. Several minutes later, Bishop saw [H] pacing back and forth near some other
students who were jumping rope. [H] still seemed upset, and was holding a basketball. She
went over and asked [H] to come with her to a quieter part of the gym. [H] advanced on her
and swung her arms at her. Bishop backed up, pushing her hands away, and took the
basketball from her. She put the basketball away in the equipment area, and walked over to
the other side of the gym. As she did, she heard McConnell tell [H] to come with her to the
hallway for a drink of water. McConnell then went into the hallway with [H].

18. As the gym class came to an end, the Complainant lined a group of students
up for leaving gym. [H] came up at her again, slapping at her head and face. Bishop
ducked
and swiveled away from her, and pushed her hands away.

19. Annette Lopez was not assigned to any of the classes having the seventh hour
gym, but was in the doorway observing the Complainant and [H]. Lopez accused the
Complainant of pushing [H], and the Complainant replied that she had not, although others
had. Lopez then announced that she intended to report the Complainant to Assistant
Principal Hamm, and left the gym.

20. After the Complainant led her group of students out of the gym, Diane
McConnell took [H] to Hamm's office. Before entering, she told [H] to tell Hamm what
Bishop had done to her.

21. The attendance complaints against the Complainant set forth in Findings of
Fact Nos. 11 and 12 would not, under the normal policies of the District, have resulted in
serious discipline.

22. The preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the Complainant,
Karen Bishop, intentionally pushed [H] to the floor during the gym class on February 13,
2004.

23. The District lacked just cause to terminate the Complainant, Karen Bishop,
for intentionally pushing [H] to the floor during the gym class on February 13, 2004.

Based on the above and foregoing Findings of Fact, the Examiner makes and issues
the following

Page 14

Decision No. 31602-E

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Respondent Service Employees International Union Local 150 is a labor
organization within the meaning of Sec. 111.70(1)[H], Stats.

2. Respondent Milwaukee Public Schools is a municipal employer within the
meaning of Sec. 111.70(1)0), Stats.

3. Complainant Karen Bishop, while employed by Milwaukee Public Schools,
was a "Municipal employee" within the meaning of Sec. 111.70(1)(i), Stats.

4. As determined by the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission in Dec.
No. 31602-C, Complainant Karen Bishop has established, by a clear and satisfactory
preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent Service Employees International Union
Local 150, has failed to fulfill its duty of fair representation by the manner in which it
processed her discharge grievance in violation of Sec. II1.70(3)(b)1, Stats.

5. Given Conclusion of Law 4, above, the Wisconsin Employment Relations
Commission will exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to Sec. 111.70(3)(a)5, Stats., to determine
the merits of Complainant Karen Bishop's discharge grievance.

6. The clear and satisfactory preponderance of the evidence establishes that the
Milwaukee Public Schools did not have just cause to terminate the Complainant Karen
Bishop, and therefore violated Section 111.70(3)(a)5, Stats.

Based on the above and foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the
Examiner makes and issues the following

Page 15

Decision No. 31602-E

ORDER

The Respondent Milwaukee Public Schools shall take the following affirmative
actions that will effectuate the purposes of the Municipal Employment Relations Act:

a. Reinstate Karen Bishop to the payroll at the appropriate pay and benefits for
her former position, with no loss of seniority;

b. Make her whole for her losses by virtue of the discharge;

c. Remove all reference to the discharge from her personnel record; and

d. Subject to the District's right to first provide reorientation and retraining in
light of the time elapsed since her last active service, reinstate her to her former
position.

e. Notify the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission and the
Complainant, in writing, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order as to what
steps have been taken to comply with the Order.

Dated at Racine, Wisconsin, this 20th day of May, 2008.

WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

Daniel J. Nielsen, Examiner

Page 16

Decision No. 31602-E

MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

MEMORANDUM ACCOMPANYING FINDINGS
OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND ORDER

The issue here is just cause for discharge, and this is purely a credibility case. The
Complainant was terminated from her position as an aide with the Milwaukee Public
Schools based on accusations of having intentionally pushed a disabled student to the floor
during a gym class.(2) The student was
not able to testify. The Complainant testified on her
own behalf, and denied pushing the student. Her two accusers testified that she did. There
are problems with the testimony of all three witnesses, but on balance, I find the
Complainant more credible.

I.Just Cause for Discharge

A. The Complainant's Version of Events

On the day of this incident, [H] was upset, and specifically upset with the
Complainant. According to the Complainant's testimony, at the middle of the period, [H]
approached her in tears and speaking incoherently. The only words she could understand
were "pushed me." [H] had been shooting baskets and Bishop told her that it was probably
an accident and she could shoot baskets at another hoop. About five minutes later, Bishop
saw [H] pacing back and forth near some other students who were jumping rope. [H] still
seemed upset, and was holding a basketball. She went over and asked [H] to come with her
to a quieter part of the gym. [H] advanced on her and repeatedly punched at her chest,
repeating "you, you, you". Bishop pushed her hands away, and took the basketball from
her.
She put the basketball away in the equipment area, and walked over to the other side of the
gym. As she did, she heard McConnell tell [H] to come with her to the hallway for a drink
of water.

As related by the Complainant, she then lined a group of students up for leaving
gym.
[H] suddenly came up at her, slapping at her head and face. Bishop ducked and swiveled
away from her, and pushed her hands away. As she did so, she saw Lopez standing in the
door, looking at her. After a moment, Lopez said someone had been pushing [H]. Bishop
asked who had done that, and Lopez said "you." Bishop replied that she had not pushed
[H],
but perhaps some other students had. At the time, Bishop thought Lopez might be talking
about the earlier incident when [H] was pushed away while shooting baskets. Lopez then
left, and Bishop took the children back to the

Page 17

Decision No. 31602-E

classroom. According to Bishop, she never saw [H] on thefloor
during that period, and
believed that she would have seen it if it had happened. If [H] had been on the floor, the
normal protocol would have been for staff members present to rush over and help her up,
and
no one took any such action.

B. Annette Lopez's Version of Events

Lopez's testified on direct examination at the complaint hearing that she was walking
past the gym and stopped to hug one of the children. The children were lined up to leave the
gym at the end of the period. She observed [H] standing behind Ms. Bishop. Neither [H]
nor Bishop said anything. Ms. Bishop then twisted around and gave [H] a two handed push
in the abdomen. [H] fell backwards to the floor, up against a gate enclosing the equipment.
[H] immediately began to cry and repeat over and over, "Ms. Bishop pushed me, Ms. Bishop
pushed me." Lopez confronted Bishop asking why she had pushed [H], and Bishop said she
had not, although ten others had. Lopez said she was going to report the incident, and
immediately went to the assistant principal's office. Although there were a fair number of
other staff members present, none of them came over to assist [H] in getting up or to check
on her, and [H] remained on the ground for about three minutes.

On cross-examination Lopez was shown a copy of her statement from the time of the
incident. It included a reference to [H] getting up from the floor and shouting and poking
at Ms. Bishop, and Lopez conceded that [H] had not remained on the floor. Lopez testified
that she and McConnell were not friends, beyond eating lunch at the same table in the lounge
with the other assistants.

C. Diane McConnell's Version of Events

Diane McConnell testified that on February 13, [H] was upset about someone having
pinched her, and kept repeating that someone had pinched her. Bishop grabbed her by the
arm, and said to her "[H], you're always making a fuss over something", which upset her
even more. At that point, McConnell felt she had to intervene, so she walked over and took
[H] into the hall for a drink of water, to calm her down. [H] did calm down, and she
brought
her back into the gym, where the other students were lining up to go back to class. [H]
walked over to get in line, and Bishop turned toward her, said "get away from me" and
pushed her with both hands, causing [H] to fall to the floor in a sitting position. [H] started
to cry. McConnell saw Lopez in the doorway, and was relieved that someone else had
witnessed this, because she had witnessed perhaps 50 other incidents when she thought that
Bishop had been too rough with children, but the teacher had never done anything. She
helped [H] up from the ground, and when the other children were taken back to class, she
accompanied [H] to Mr. Hamm's office, where [H] told Hamm that Bishop had pushed her.

Page 18

Decision No. 31602-E

D. Jeremy Krutina's Version of Events

Jeremy Krutina testified that [H] was capable of being aggressive towards staff. On
February 13th, towards the end of phys ed class, he observed another child
push [H] away
from the basket as she was trying to shoot baskets. [H] became quite upset and claimed the
other girl had pinched her. At that point, the teacher Mr. Zabala called out that it was time
to put the balls away. Ms. Bishop took the ball away. [H] again became upset, and started
to advance on Ms. Bishop, trying to hit and shove her. Bishop deflected [H] to the side.
Ms.
McConnell then took [H] out into the hall for a drink of water. Krutina turned his attention
to the other children, but a short time later observed [H] on the floor, seemingly very upset
and having a tantrum. He did not know how she came to be on the floor. Krutina agreed
that he had previously provided a statement saying he hadn't seen anything after [H] left for
a drink of water, but nonetheless was sure that he later saw her sitting on the floor.

E. Aracelio Zabala's Version of Events

Aracelio Zabala testified that on February 13th, during the seventh
hour gym class,
he heard a commotion and observed [H] advancing upon Bishop trying to strike her, and
Bishop backing away from her. He did not observe any physical contact between the two,
and turned his attention elsewhere. At some point he saw Annette Lopez near the doors, and
heard her say something to the effect that Ms. Bishop had done something to [H].

F. Vicky Rodriguez's Version of Events

Vicky Rodriguez testified that she had been acquainted with [H] for a number of
years. During the second semester of the 2003-2004 school year, her students and Ms.
Bishop's had two common class periods per day. The second of these was gym during
seventh hour. Rodriguez left at 1:30 during that semester. On February 13, 2004, she was
walking past the office on her way out of the building, and she saw Ms. McConnell in the
doorway to the office with [H]. [H] seemed upset, and McConnell was telling her to go tell
Mr. Hamm what Ms. Bishop had done to her. Rodriguez expressed the opinion that [H] was
not capable of initiating this course of action, and that McConnell was "enticing" her to tell
a story to Hamm.

Rodriguez recalled that [H] was having a bad day on the 13th, and
had had some
trouble with misbehavior on the bus in the morning.

Page 19

Decision No. 31602-E

G. Jerome Hamm's Version of Events

Hamm testified that Lopez came to his office on February 13, very upset, and said
she had seen Bishop push a student to the floor. McConnell then appeared with [H], who
also seemed quite upset. [H] kept repeating "she pushed me" and when he asked who had
pushed her, she said it was Ms. Bishop. He told the two women to prepare statements
describing what they had witnessed.(3)

H. Discussion

There is nothing external to the testimony that compels a finding in favor of one
version or another. No party's testimony is physically impossible. Everyone thatwas
physically positioned have seen what he or she claimed to have seen, and done what he or
she claimed to have done. None of the witnesses' testimony perfectly gibes with the others,
but some things are clear. The testimony of Krutina is consistent with that of Zabala and the
Complainant as to the fact that there was an incident in which [H] became very upset with
Bishop and attempted to physically assault her, at around the time the 10 minute warning bell
rang signaling that the equipment was to be put away. Although the District argues that
Zabala and Krutina were actually seeing the aftermath of the push, when [H] became
understandably angry and went after Bishop, that interpretation does not comport with
Krutina's recollection that this took place when Zabala called for the balls to be put away.
Krutina's testimony and statement have persuasive value in this respect because he also tied
it to another student having pushed [H] away from the basket and pinching her, and was
clear that this occurred before McConnell took her out for a drink of water. Thus it is
reasonably clear from the record that [H] was pushed at least once during the course of the
period, albeit by another student, was very upset about it, and was very upset with the
Complainant personally prior to any of the abuse alleged by McConnell or Lopez.

In assessing the credibility of the principal witnesses ­ Bishop, Lopez and
McConnell
- I note that the Complainant was a veteran assistant with the District, who had exemplary
evaluations in the two years preceding this incident, and was highly regarded by the
administration and the teacher she was assigned to work with. She had a good rapport with
the students, and particularly with [H]. It goes without saying that she had no prior history
of any physical abuse to students, since she remained in the District's employ. She was used
to the challenges of dealing with developmentally disabled children, and has a
developmentally disabled son at home. On the face of it, she is not a likely candidate for a
sudden and unexplained outburst of physical aggression to a student.

Page 20

Decision No. 31602-E

On the other hand, there are elements of the Complainant's version of events that do
not make a great deal of sense, most notably her position that [H] was never on the floor on
February 13th. Not only McConnell and Lopez, but also Krutina saw [H]
on the floor
towards the end of the class. All three of them said that she was crying and having a
tantrum
of sorts. It seems very unlikely that the Complainant, standing in the immediate vicinity,
could have missed that, and that draws her credibility into question.

As for Lopez, I must observe that, solely on the basis of demeanor, she was one of
the least persuasive witnesses I have ever encountered. Her appearance on the stand was
combative, and her answers were by turns self aggrandizing, evasive, exaggerated and
argumentative. Her basic narrative was the same as it had been in her initial statement, apart
from her belief at the hearing that [H[ had remained on the ground after the alleged shove,
until she was shown her statement, which stated that [H] got up and went after the
Complainant physically. That is a fairly vivid scene, and not one which would easily escape
one's memory if it had actually been witnessed. I note that Lopez's version of [H] getting
up from the ground and assailing Bishop is not consistent with McConnell's statement and
testimony, which had McConnell helping [H] up, and no reference to any further interaction
with Bishop. Lopez also parts company with McConnell in her description of what
happened in conjunction with the pushing, with Lopez describing a wordless turning and
pushing, and McConnell claiming that the Complainant turned, cried "get away from me",
and shoved [H] to the ground. They agree on the central issue of the pushing, but if the
story
were concocted, one would expect consistency on the central point and deviations on the
surrounding events. That is what appears in their statements and testimony.

McConnell was also a witness with a combative and argumentative demeanor. More
significantly, for purposes of credibility assessment, she was someone with a clear motive
for wanting to harm the Complainant, whom she blamed for getting her in trouble one week
earlier when she had been caught leaving her post without permission, and whom she had
threatened with physical violence. It also bears remembering that in the course of the
incident one week earlier, McConnell lied to Hamm by claiming she had permission to leave
the gym, a claim that Zabala flatly denied when Hamm asked him about it. In short,
McConnell is someone who has been shown to lie in the recent past, and who had a strong
motive to lie about the Complainant in this case. Her credibility as a witness is very low.
Her account of events before and after the alleged push deviates from Lopez's, and her
version of the interaction between [H] and Bishop right before she took [H] out for a drink
of water has Bishop roughly grabbing [H's] arm and worsening the situation, whereas
Krutina saw [H] attacking Bishop, and Bishop gently deflecting her. McConnell's
recounting of the incident seems quite deliberately slanted to cast Bishop as something of
a brute.

Page 21

Decision No. 31602-E

Concluding, as I do, that the credibility of the two accusers is quite shaky, there is
still the question of how likely it is that someone could have coordinated their actions to take
advantage of the situation as it evolved in the gym class that day.(4) Lopez was, after all, not
assigned to that class. By her telling, she was simply walking by, and no one reported
seeing
McConnell and her speaking in the gym before she made the accusation. This concern is
reduced somewhat by the fact that McConnell took [H] into the hall for a drink of water, and
if the two were already of a mind to take revenge on the Complainant for having, in
McConnell's mind, lied about her to Hamm, she might have had an opportunity to speak
with Lopez at that time.

The District argues, and I agree, that the evidence of a motive for Lopez to lie is
rather scant. Both she and McConnell say that their relationship is cordial but casual, based
on working in the same building and taking lunch at the same time at the single lunch table
in the lounge. The evidence of the extent of their personal friendship, of course, turns
entirely on the truthfulness of their descriptions of it, and their truthfulness is what is in issue
here.

In the end, this decision turns on a choice between a generally credible witness, with
a strong motive to lie to save her job, and a story that excludes [H] being on the floor, and
two generally incredible witnesses, whose stories do not gibe well with one another or with
the testimony of others, but who agree on the central point of a push having taken place. It
is possible, of course, that there is truth in all three versions. The Complainant said in her
original written statement and in her testimony that she pushed [H's] hands away from her
when she was slapping at her, which would have been at the same time the alleged push took
place. If [H] went to the ground after Bishop had pushed her arms away, one could
speculate
that this is a case of differing perspectives on the same events, heavily colored by the
self-interests of the observers ­ McConnell painting Bishop as abusive to take revenge
for her
own problems a week earlier; Lopez as a friend to McConnell, predisposed to think ill of
Bishop; and Bishop, seeking to minimize the incident because Lopez had announced her
intention to report to Hamm.

Whatever actually occurred on February 13, 2004, the preponderance of the evidence
in this record does not establish that the Complainant engaged in the intentional and
unprovoked assault that formed the basis of the discharge. The

Page 22

Decision No. 31602-E

collective bargaining agreement requires just cause for discipline, and the employer
bears
the burden of proof on the merits. As it has not carried that burden, I conclude that the
Complainant was not discharged for just cause.

II.The Appropriate Remedy

The traditional remedy in a case of a discharge found not to be for just cause is an
Order reinstating the employee, and making her whole for all losses due to the improper
termination. That portion of the remedy is not really in issue. The dispute over remedy
centers on whether the cost of backpay and other economic liability should be borne solely
by the District, or whether by virtue of Local 150's failure in its duty of fair representation,
the costs should be apportioned between the District and the labor organization.

The District argues for an apportionment, based upon federal case law cited in two
leading treatises, Higgins, The Developing Labor Law, 5th Ed.
(BNA 2006) at pages
2075-2095, and Gorman, Basic Text on Labor Law, (West, 2004), at pages
1002-1016.
I note that many of the cases in those texts premise a make whole remedy to the Union on
the lack of recourse against the employer, owing to the Union's breach of its duty. That is
not the case here, where the Complainant has the right, under MERA, to pursue both the
Union for its breach of the duty and the District for its breach of the contract. Putting that
distinction aside, this case arises under state law, and it is not a case of first impression on
remedies for breaching the duty of fair representation. From Sam Guthrie v. UWM
and
AFSCME Local 82, Dec. No. 11457-E (Schurke, 12/23/75) to Garry Van Ouse
v. City
of Wausau and AFSCME Local 1287, Dec, No. 30272-B (WERC, 10/22/02) to this
case,
Karen Bishop v. Milwaukee Public Schools and SEIU Local 150, Dec. No.
31602-C
(WERC, 1/02/07), the Commission has dealt with the question of appropriate remedies for
breaches of the duty of fair representation. Despite three decades of DFR cases, there is no
Wisconsin case in which the labor organization has been held liable for more than the
employee's costs of litigation ­ for example, filing fees in Van Ouse, and
attorneys fees and
costs in Guthrie and in the first phase of this case. Nor did the Commission, in
its decision
on the question of fair representation in this case, make any provision for a remedy against
the Union beyond attorneys fees and costs, despite being fully aware of the federal precedent
cited by the District.(5)

This is consistent with the general notions that the employee's loss by
virtue of the Union's duty of fair representation violation is the loss of an opportunity for a
cost free arbitration hearing,(6)

while her losses by virtue of the Employer's contract violation
are the wages and benefits that she was denied.(7)

Page 23

Decision No. 31602-E

The Commission's prior order addressed the remedy for the Union's breach, and
limited it to the costs of litigation. I find no basis in that decision, in state law, or in the
specific facts of this case, for the apportionment urged by the District. Accordingly, I
conclude that the appropriate remedy is for the District to immediately:

a. Reinstate Karen Bishop to the payroll at the appropriate pay and benefits for
her former position, with no loss of seniority;

b. Make her whole for her losses by virtue of the discharge;

c. Remove all reference to the discharge from her personnel record; and

d. Subject to the District's right to first provide reorientation and retraining in
light of the time elapsed since her last active service, reinstate her to her former
position.

Dated at Racine, Wisconsin, this 20th day of May, 2008.

WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

Daniel J. Nielsen, Examiner

dag

31602-E

1 As indicated
by the prefatory paragraphs, this matter has been the subject of a prior Examiner decision
(Dec.
No. 31602-B) and a Commission review (Dec. No. 31602-C). Some of the Findings of Fact
from those prior
proceedings are set forth in these Findings, for the purpose of providing background and
context. All of the
Findings of Fact as determined by the Commission in Dec. No. 31602-C, without regard to
whether they are
reproduced below, are incorporated herein by reference.

2 The letter terminating her also
alleged a number of alleged attendance related violations. After hearing
testimony from District officials about these incidents and the treatment of such incident in
the normal course
of the District's employment policies, the Examiner advised the parties during the hearing
that the alleged
attendance violations could not support a discharge for an employee with the Complainant's
work record, and
directed them to focus their evidence and arguments on the allegation that she had
intentionally pushed [H]
to the floor.

3 Another MPS employee, the late C.
Pitchford, provided a written statement to Hamm at about the time of
the incident to the effect that he had seen [H] approach Bishop twice during the last ten
minutes of the class
period, lashing out at her both times. This is consistent with Bishop's recounting.

4 In making my credibility
assessments, I have not assigned weight to [H's] reported statement to Hamm that
Bishop had pushed her, and her mother's statement that [H] repeatedly said over the weekend
that a teacher
had pushed her. I do not doubt that [H] said this. The evidence is that she functions at
about a two year old
level. She was upset with having been pushed during gym, she was upset with Bishop, and
by Bishop's own
account, Bishop did push her, when she was deflecting her arms as [H] tried to slap her.
Vicky Rodriguez
testified credibly that she saw McConnell basically prepping [H] before she spoke with
Hamm, to tell him what
Mrs. Bishop had done to her. It is difficult to say whether McConnell was telling [H] to
relate what happened
to her, or was telling [H] McConnell's take on what had happened to her, so she could
repeat it to Hamm.

5 See Bishop, Dec. No.
31602-C at page 20.

6 See Guthrie, Dec. No.
11457-E at pages 37-39.

7 While it is undoubtedly true that the
Union's failure of its duty of fair representation extended the resolution
of this matter, the District knew at all times that Bishop actively disputed the termination,
and at all times it
retained the sole ability to reinstate her and thereby limit its liability.